Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Full Disclosure: I only care whether moths eat my wife's sweaters. Otherwise not interested in this particular issue...
I too have some extra time this morning. Meet the Press has John Kerry on. Incredible! This is the most momentous day in the Bush presidency, and they put on that clown.
"Spam" ? More like "facts".
How could your experience be otherwise? What you've described is the very essence of creationism.
OK, I've got a little more time [and patience].
What is your best evidence for darwin's 'theory'?
Please, use your own words if you can.
Probably the grandaddy of all "evolving code" projects: Tierra
Modern "evolving code" project: Avida
Just occurred to me.
If you tweaked an "evolving code" project, so that instead of random mutations to each copy of the code, the codes used genetic algorithms as the tool for modification, propagation, then...
if you ran across a bug you could really, truthfully say
"this f*cking code isn't working!"
BTW what do they do to debug the code, to make sure the parameters / values chosen for mutation rates, etc. are actually being followed?
Cheers!
Well, P.H. at least we agree on politics. Great Day for freedom
Throw a little ammonia and electric sparks in that computer. Maybe it will spring to life.
Although there may be members of the Unification Church who do not believe Reverend Moon to be the second coming of Christ, I think it is fair to say that such people must be a small minority; indeed, it is difficult to imagine anyone persevering in the rigorous life of a Unificationist without believing that Sun Myung Moon is to our generation what Jesus was to his.
Do you consider psychology a science?
Oh really? I can think of *one* in the past 140 years
The problem I see is a disingenuousness based upon a true believer mentality.
Ontogeny recapitulates ontogeny, lamarkism, the black and white moths.
Evolutionary theory is filled with historical mistakes.
Early on particle physics had its share of scientists who were wrong, presented artifact etc...
If it had stayed at that level then people would be right to be skeptical of that discipline.
Only the most fervent faithful or person who does not understand the the nature of physical science would equate evolutionary theory as it has been presented and exists today with the hard and mathematically rigourous physical sciences of quantum mechanics.
Right now how many genomes are sequenced?
Actually, that is essentially exactly what is said. Richard Dawkins as the prime example.
I do not understand your need for the disingenuousness, defensiveness or intellectual honesty you put forth.
Not mutually exclusive.
Still, I'd suggest you don't know what either facts or spam are from that response.
Are you saying YOU have no idea, no comprehension, of what you post?
Yes, but are you tenured yet?
;-)
Priceless.
It was not a subtle hint. I had already told him about non-Euclidean geometry and he still came back with the question without specifying.
I don't have a day job I'm retired.
As for your vocation I hope it's not in the scientific field, because it seems you are like most of the mainstream established ones who don't know the difference between a theory and fact.
They claim that Christians are idiots and bigots when there is no more bigoted, or idiotic group on the face of the earth than those who set entrenched in the hollowed halls the scientific community when one of their pet theories is challenged.
They are supposed to be open to new ideas and thought and seekers of truth and facts but when it comes to legitimate challenges to evolution they slam the doors to their minds and seek to ridicule and destroy any and all who threaten.
Like the young scientist with a family at the Smithsonian who has had his office taken away and had career targeted from the sanctimonious scientific bigots simply for a comment questioning this theory.
They take a theory which is nothing more than an opinion with some fancy Ph d's or H2o4's tacked on the guy who uttered it and promote it as scientific established fact.
Then when it might be proved wrong all those who feel threatened because they have hung their ego, career, reputation,personal beliefs and paycheck on it immediately form a lynch mob.
You say Bush won because he was "lucky".
Well if that the case next time we can all just stay home because it's the "lucky" one who is going to win anyway.
Then again that's not very scientific.
I say he won because he had a good campaign strategy,had lot of intelligent people working hard for him making the proper decisions and praying for him.
You know ID.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.